Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

YOUNIS BROS. & CO. v. CIGNA WORLDWIDE INS. CO.

September 15, 1995

YOUNIS BROTHERS & CO.
v.
CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY THE ABI JAOUDI AND AZAR TRADING CORPORATION v. CIGNA WORLDWIDE INSURANCE COMPANY



The opinion of the court was delivered by: THOMAS N. O'NEILL, JR.

 O'Neill, J.

 September 15, 1995

 I. Introduction

 With respect to the procedural history of these cases reference is made to this Court's November 16, 1994 memorandum reported at Younis Bros. & Co., Inc. v. Cigna Worldwide Ins. Co., 882 F. Supp. 1468 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

 Currently before the Court are the post-trial motions of the parties.

 Defendant CIGNA argues that the following entitle it to judgment as a matter of law:

 
1. The suit limitation clause contained in the fire policies issued by defendant to plaintiffs bars plaintiffs' claims with respect to those policies.
 
2. Plaintiffs failed to make out a prima facie case establishing their right to coverage under the insurance policies;
 
3. The war risk exclusion provisions contained in the policies bar plaintiffs' claims;
 
4. Neither defendant's refusal to pay plaintiffs' claims nor its manner of investigating those claims can constitute bad faith under 42 Pa.S.C.A. § 8371.

 Defendant argues that the following entitle it to a new trial on plaintiffs' contract and bad faith claims:

 
5. The Court committed reversible error in instructing the jury with respect to ambiguity in the insurance contracts;
 
6. The Court committed reversible error in instructing the jury with respect to plaintiffs' alleged fraud and noncooperation.

 Defendant also asserts the following:

 
7. The Court's decision to allow plaintiff AJA to assert its Harbel fire loss claim constituted reversible error;
 
8. AJA forfeited fire loss coverage with respect to the Harbel location by violating the notice provision contained in the Harbel fire policy.

 Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to a new trial as to those issues upon which they did not prevail because plaintiffs were prejudiced by this Court's determination:

 
1. Not to disqualify the jury panel due to the allegedly improper voir dire and striking of minority persons from the jury pool by defendant's counsel. *fn1"

 Plaintiffs also argue that this Court erred by:

 
2. Failing to rule that as a matter of law the suit limitation policy contained in the fire policies did not bar their suit;
 
3. Failing to rule as a matter of law that the coverage limits of the policies were those amounts contained in the policies' renewal endorsements;
 
4. Limiting plaintiffs' cross-examination of defendant's witness John Smith;
 
5. Failing to compel defendant to produce unredacted copies of reports which defendant introduced into evidence;

 Plaintiff AJA argues that the Court erred by:

 
6. Failing to rule as a matter of law that -- with respect to AJA's fire and burglary policies -- defendant was liable for the entire amount of coverage stated in the renewal endorsements;
 
7. Refusing to award plaintiff AJA partial judgment in the amount of the damages stipulated at the Harbel supermarket and warehouse, the Randall Street supermarket and wholesale warehouse, the Freeport administrative offices and bonded warehouse and the Old Road manager's residence;
 
8. Incorrectly charging the jury with respect to the issue of plaintiff AJA's alleged fraud.

 Plaintiff Younis argues that with respect to its bad faith claim pursuant to 42 Pa.S.C.A. § 8371 the Court erred by:

 
9. Failing to permit the jury to determine whether Younis was entitled to recover interest, counsel fees and costs and the amount of those sums;
 
10. Excluding testimony regarding defendant's conduct;
 
11. Charging the jury that it could award punitive damages against defendant only if it first determined that defendant's actions were outrageous and permitting the jury to hear additional evidence regarding defendant's conduct after the jury had determined that defendant had acted in bad faith;
 
12. In failing to incorporate findings of facts in this Court's memorandum dated November 16, 1994 and in failing to award Younis damages pursuant to § 8371.

 Plaintiff Younis also argues that this Court erred in refusing to award Younis expenses which it incurred ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.